Orissa High Court grants bail to three in STA Token crypto case

What the Record Shows

The Orissa High Court granted bail on 1 May 2024 to three men named in the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) case concerning the Solar Techno Alliance (STA) Token, a cryptocurrency marketed through a multi-level marketing network. In Afr v State of Odisha (OPID), BLAPL Nos. 12151, 11245 and 14539 of 2023, Justice Sashikanta Mishra directed the release of Nirod Kumar Das, Ratnakar Palei and Gurtej Singh alias Sidhu, who had been in custody since August 2023.

The case rests on EOW P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023, registered on 28 July 2023, in which the EOW alleges that the STA Token was sold as a Ponzi-style investment scheme that enrolled thousands of members in Bhadrak district and across Odisha. Per the EOW, the accused were charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (OPID) Act.

Significantly, the High Court held for the purpose of bail that a cryptocurrency such as the STA Token is not "money" within the meaning of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, and that dealing in virtual currency is not, as of date, banned in India. Those observations are prima facie findings at the bail stage, not a final acquittal, and the trial is yet to take place.

How It Worked

According to the EOW's case, the STA Token was launched around September 2021 and presented to investors as a digital coin backed by a Netherlands-based solar-technology venture using blockchain. The EOW alleges that this green-energy framing gave a pure token scheme the appearance of a real-economy business, and that the coin was sold through a hierarchy of district and state "heads" who earned commissions for recruiting new members.

The EOW alleges that the network's country head presented himself publicly as a cryptocurrency expert and motivational speaker, and that district-level seminars converted that seminar-stage authority into village-scale enrolment. Investigators state that no authorisation from the Reserve Bank of India or any other regulator existed for the scheme.

Per the material placed before the court, the EOW traced two bank accounts linked to the network that showed credits of about Rs 5.03 crore and Rs 10.40 crore. The EOW further alleges that Nirod Kumar Das accumulated roughly Rs 18 crore, said to have grown from an initial outlay of about Rs 3,000, through recruitment commissions.

In granting bail, Justice Mishra observed that, on the material then available, there was no evidence that the petitioners had directly promised returns to or defrauded individual investors, and that investments in cryptocurrency could not be treated as "deposits" under the OPID Act. The court recorded these as reasons for enlarging the accused on bail, while the substantive trial continues.

Who Lost Money

The EOW has described the STA Token network as a scheme spanning more than Rs 1,000 crore nationally, with over two lakh members enrolled across states including Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand, Haryana, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Assam and Odisha. Within Odisha, the EOW puts the membership at more than 10,000, concentrated in districts such as Bhadrak, Balasore, Bhubaneswar, Mayurbhanj, Jajpur, Kendrapada and Keonjhar.

These figures are the investigating agency's estimates of the scheme's scale, not judicially determined losses. The bank credits actually identified in the bail order, about Rs 5.03 crore and Rs 10.40 crore across two accounts, are far smaller than the national headline figure, which illustrates the usual gap between an alleged scheme size and the sums traced at the investigation stage.

What individual members have recovered is not established on the record reviewed. Where a matter is still at the chargesheet-and-trial stage, no distribution to affected investors has been ordered, and any recovery would depend on the outcome of the trial and any parallel proceedings under depositor-protection law.

Where It Stands Now

As of today, the STA Token matter remains at the chargesheet-and-trial stage before the Odisha courts. The EOW had filed its chargesheet, and in a later order dated 3 December 2024, Sukdev Singh v State of Odisha (OPID), ABLAPL No. 11251 of 2024, Justice Mishra recorded that the chargesheet had been submitted and that a further accused stood "more or less on the same footing" as the co-accused already granted bail, allowing him conditional bail on surrender.

The High Court's bail-stage view that the STA Token is not "money" under the Prize Chits Act, and that crypto holdings are not "deposits" under the OPID Act, weakens those specific statutory charges, but the IPC charges of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy remain to be tried. No accused has been convicted, and the bail orders decide only the question of custody, not guilt.

A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Reports of a separate Enforcement Directorate or PMLA layer in this matter could not be verified against an official record and are not asserted here.

What It Means

The STA Token case is a clear illustration of a recurring pattern the enforcement archive at Oquilia's enforcement desk has tracked across crypto matters, from the HPZ Token case to the OctaFX platform matter: a token wrapped in a real-economy story, here solar technology, and sold through a recruitment ladder that pays for enrolment rather than for any underlying yield. The green-energy framing and the seminar-stage "expert" credentials were, on the EOW's case, the trust mechanism rather than any verifiable business.

The bail ruling also carries a wider legal lesson. Because India still lacks a dedicated cryptocurrency statute, the High Court found that the Prize Chits and OPID Acts, drafted around "money" and "deposits", do not neatly fit a token scheme. That gap shapes what the state can charge and shows why depositor-protection law built for cash schemes strains when applied to virtual assets.

For a reader, the practical takeaway is verification, not fear. Before committing to any investment promising fixed or referral-driven returns, check whether the scheme or intermediary is registered with SEBI or the RBI, and treat a promised return that depends on recruiting others as the defining feature to avoid. A tool such as Oquilia's lump-sum returns calculator can show how far a claimed 10 per cent a month outcome departs from anything a regulated product offers.

FAQ

Does this mean the accused are guilty?

No. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt. The people named by the EOW are accused, not convicted; they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the trial is yet to conclude. The Orissa High Court granted them bail, which decides custody and not the merits of the case.

What exactly did the Orissa High Court hold about cryptocurrency?

For the purpose of bail, the court held that a cryptocurrency such as the STA Token is not "money" within the meaning of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, that dealing in virtual currency is not banned in India as of date, and that crypto holdings do not constitute "deposits" under the OPID Act. These are prima facie observations, not a final verdict.

What charges did the EOW bring?

Per the bail order, the EOW charged the accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 6 of the OPID Act, arising out of EOW P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023.

Have investors got their money back?

Not on the record reviewed. The matter is still at the chargesheet-and-trial stage, and no distribution to affected members has been ordered. Any recovery would depend on the outcome of the trial and any proceedings under depositor-protection law.

How do I check whether a scheme is registered?

You can verify an intermediary's registration on the SEBI website and check RBI listings for authorised deposit-takers. A scheme that pays commissions for recruiting new members, rather than from a genuine underlying business, is a defining warning sign regardless of the branding it uses.

This report is based on the Orissa High Court bail order dated 1 May 2024 in Afr v State of Odisha and the subsequent order dated 3 December 2024, reviewed on 1 August 2026.